The cartoon controversy is throwing up interesting "bedfellows".

[Michael_UK]

The cartoon controversy is throwing up interesting bedfellows. I'm horrified by the reaction of muslim extremists over these cartoons. The protests in London were an abomination. I understand that many liberals/progressives are split over this issue. Although I can try and understand that the cartoons were a little insensitive, the reaction has gone over any boudary of decency.

What's frightening is that I'm in a camp with the racist right, who despise Muslims, no matter what. It makes me feel a little uncomfortable.

Anyone else feel the same?

[kurth]

1. The ACLU and the KKK have been on the same side sometimes...

[BushOut06]

6. I've read where some Neo-Nazis align themselves with Islamist terrorists

See, this is where the whole Aryan thinking gets a little wierd and illogical. They consider themselves and Arabs to be "brothers of the blood" or some nonsense like that. Maybe it's because they have one common enemy, the Jews. So they bend over backwards to justify their support of what would otherwise be a "mud race" (in their terms).

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

12. Ahmed Huber & David Myatt are interesting neo-nazi's in this respect

Huber:

The mysterious Achmed Huber: Friend to Hitler, Allah and Ibn Ladin?
http://www.oraclesyndicate.org/pub_e/k.coo_e/publ_05-02_1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Huber

Myatt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Myatt

[endarkenment]

2. Either you believe in free speech/free press or you don't.

If freepers and fascists have discovered a new belief in these basic liberal/progressive values, welcome aboard the freedom train brother!

There is always hope for redemption.

[Wordie]

26. It's also possible to believe deeply in free speech, but w/self-restraint

that respects the values of others. It is a fine line sometimes, admittedly.

How many of those DUers who say they value free speech above all else would ever use the "N" word to refer to a black person? I doubt there would even be one. This controversy should be seen in the same light, imho. It's possible to have the right to free speech along with the wisdom to know that there are times when it is better not to exercise it.

[endarkenment]

30. yes of course but

it isn't acceptible speech that is in need of protection. It is precisely our right to use words and phrases (and to draw pictures) that others find offensive, from ethnic or racial slurs to drawing a picture of mohammed with a bomb-hat or displaying a crucifix in a jar of urine, that tests that right.

I'm just not going to condemn papers that printed that cartoon, nor am I going to justify rioters who destroyed property and injured people because of that cartoon. Quite frankly, there is something valid about portraying mohammed with a bomb-hat, it has a bit of truth to it. In the same light, jesus could for example be portrayed crucified on a fighter jet. Great religious prophets are routinely used to justify the worst sort of murder and carnage. That says nothing much about the validity of the teachings of either mohammed or jesus, it is a commentary on how religion is used by the state.

Given the history of western civilization, including both its islamic and christian branches, the answer to 'what would do?' in about any situation, for the last 2,000 years or so, is 'kill, kill, kill'.

[YOY]

Right here...

Then again I believe in free speech including that which is (truly) racist or offensive. That's the price you pay for free speech. Then again free speech also allows criticism of the (truly) racist or offensive.

SInce I haven't seen the cartoons I can't call them offensive.

[Warpy]

3. I was appalled at the juvenile, offensive and tacky cartoons

I am appalled at the obstinacy that has caused the Danes to refuse to apologize for them when they so clearly insulted so many people.

I am appalled at the overreaction by angry young males who have been directed to the Danes as a place to focus all that anger.

The whole situation is terrible, and nobody's wearing white hats. They are all wrong.

[fujiyama]

4. Sorry there is no moral equivalence

The cartoon was written by twelve artistts, not all Danes (just as the riots were by some Muslims). It is important not to stereotype any group, including the Danish.

But the simple fact is thaat the government of Denmark has no obligation to apologize for what is published in their INDEPENDANT press.

The behavior of the fanatical mobs is appaling.

[mrfrapp]

7. They are all wrong

"They are all wrong"

That about sums it up. Deliberate flamebaiting on the one side and rising to it on the other.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. Which cartoons are you referring to?

Some have been shown to be forgeries...the one with the bomb on M.'s head, for example.

I didn't think the ones I saw were any worse than the ones we see weekly here on DU when they are posted by the helpful member who sends us the links.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

14. The bomb hat was not a forgery

The original cartoons:

http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/

The 3 fake cartoons show Mohammed as a "paedophile demon" & having a pigs snout and a praying muslim being raped by a dog (well that's what it's supposed to show - all three are really poorly done).

edit - should say that it was almost certainly the 'Islamic Society in Denmark' who created the images - it was these that they showed on their tour of the ME to kick up the fuss.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. Okay, thanks for setting me straight

so do I have it now that there were forgeries, the pig ones, but the bomb hat was part of the main group?

Do you know whether the forgeries were the ones that got it started, or were they added to fan the flames?

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

17. Your first sentence is correct.

As background, in mid-September there was an article in another Danish paper about the difficulty a writer was having getting an illustrator to work on his childrens book about Mohammed's life. According to the author, the various illustrators he spoke to were too afraid of fundamentalist retribution - citing the murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh & more recent physical attacks on academics in Denmark by Islamic fundamentalists. This article sparked off a debate in the Danish media about free speech, Islam and European secular society. Jyllands-Posten asked a load of cartoonists to provide something on Islam and the twelve who responded were published in the paper at the end of the month, along with an editoral:

http://epaper.jp.dk/30-09-2005/demo/JP_04-03.html

This Wikipedia timeline best describes in short what then followed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

IMO, none of the original 12 cartoons are particularly offensive (or original, or good) so I don't believe they could have made that much impact in the Middle East without some embellishment or misinformation about the reasons for publishing them. In fact I doubt many of the people going OTT have actually seen the pictures.

[greyl]

25. What do you think the lit bomb in the turban cartoon means? nt

[TallahasseeGrannie]

29. I assume

it is meant to portray M. as a violent, warlike man.

[greyl]

24. The Danes did apologize.

http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3527646:fid=11324/

The apologized for offending Muslims, but stand by the fact that the cartoons are "sober" - not racist or bigoted.

[joefree1]

5. Free speech, free speech, free speech

There's no way of side stepping this. The cartoons might be a huge insult but any Government censorship will lead us down a dangerous slippery slope to ...?

The protesters are welcomed to boycott the offending countries but the violence only goes to point out their own repressive nature to the world.

[bullimiami]

8. no i dont agree. if the jesus freaks in this country are offended by

anything they demand it be retracted and they get it all of the time. they do not believe in freedom of the press as a principle.

and they not only dont care about this offending musims but they want to rub it in their faces. they have called for it to be published here "in every newspaper"

no, the religious right in this country are hypocrites and bullies.


Look at what you wrote.
"Although I can try and understand that the cartoons were a little insensitive, the reaction has gone over any boudary of decency."

Apparently what you see as "a little insensitive" was a lot more serious to these muslims as it provoked this reaction. Also your claims of decency, as an member of bushs america, are probably not going to mean much to an arab world who have been treated with none.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

13. Your sensitivity is admirable and rare

and I, for one, applaud you for it.

And I agree that many of the RW ARE bullies.

However, all that said, we are still left with quite a conundrum. Yes, we should have better manners, we should be more sensitive, but laws are not made for such nuance. Law is black and white.

Either we have freedom of speech or we don't.

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. The problem is, Europeans don't have 1st Amendment

And the EU has already commissioned a panel to "bring all sides together" to legislate what is and is not free speech. I kid you not.

And I can tell ya that's how alot of Europeans (liberal and conservative) think "free speech" works.

In some ways, like the Constitution the "radical revolution" in the USA has outlasted similar upheavals in Europe and Russia which have devolved into statist, consensus-based societies that do not think about freedom in the same terms we do. In many parts of Europe, a "liberal" is approximately a secular person who agrees with Thatcher or Reagan.

To find "liberals" in US terms you have to look for social democrats, who are themselves highly secular and not always interested in freedom of speech or affirmative action when it comes to Muslims (consider the French ban on headscarves in public buildings, and the French socialist refusal to acknowledge the existence of racism in France).

Of course, Bush is trying to make us more like Russia or Iran. There doesn't seem to be any real American-style populist left in Europe. Perhaps they all moved here.

[The Stranger]

9. Wedge issue, split Progressives, you feel "a little uncomfortable . . . "

Think you might be on to something?

:think:

[bloom]

10. I think it is worthwhile to be suspicious

of any movement designed to antagonize Muslims - no matter what the pretext.


Saw this on Kos today:

Muslim Cartoon Controversy: What the Media Isn't Telling You

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/5/13149/60748


About Saudis inflaming Muslims to riot.


Another thing that isn't mentioned - is the newspaper that originally solicited and posted the cartoons runs a Jewish symbol on it's pages.


When you consider the history and the motivations of different groups (like the Saudis and 9/11 - do we really know what all was up with that, for instance) - and who wants there to be a war in Iran and who would try to use propaganda to gain sympathy for it's cause - you have to wonder.

[nodehopper]

16. I think

you are condemning religious fundamentalism, not Muslims as a group per se. Don't lump yourself together with the racist right.

[CJCRANE]

19. The racist RW generally dislikes

minorities (gays, Jews, muslims etc)
freedom of speech (as they're always telling people to STFU if they dissent)

However, they love it when they can turn liberals' PC sensibilities against them. In this case they get two hits for the price of one: "see, those muslims are stopping your freedom of speech, what you gonna do now?" and "so you want freedom of speech to criticise the muslims? Good for you!"

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. I agree it places us in

a very uncomfortable position because it give them ammunition.

[LSK]

20. i personally feel we are all being setup

See my thread about the signs with the same fonts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=326878&mesg_id=326878

:tinfoilhat:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. LSK, that was an interesting thread

and you could very well be correct.

But here is my take on the whole thing, set up or not. This is an issue that is fraught with all sorts of problems for us as liberals. It is one huge reason why much of the rest of the country finds our message disjointed, disconnected. Because most of us have a brain and know that you don't yell fire in a crowded theatre. But sometimes in our zeal to be open-minded our brains fall out.

If the world is going to get along, there have to be absolutes (not a lot, but some), and here in this country we have established freedom of speech, as have many countries. Nevermind for a moment that it is a flawed system and we don't always achieve it. Muslim theocracies don't share that mindset and are working from a world view that is so foreign to me, personally, I can't begin to get inside it. But regardless of whether they (or we) were set up, manipulated, led on, etc., the bottom line is you can't be a citizen of the world and burn embassies and threaten death to those countries who don't toe your particular line.

Many people at this point, illustrate the fact that we are not a very good world citizen at the moment, and I agree. But it still does not, in my opinion, give carte blanche for this type of behavior.

I am a teacher and just today I heard another teacher tell a child "well, if you wouldn't make him angry he wouldn't bully you" and there is no doubt that this kid is an annoying person. But bullying is bullying and it can't be allowed. I see a strong analogy in this situation.

[greyl]

27. Good points.

I think it's also important to recognize re the impression that liberals and the racist right are on the same side of this issue, that if there were peace in the world between all countries and our president didn't recently call for a "crusade", and then these cartoons were published, I doubt that there would be rioting.
Some on the right are spinning the issue, claiming that free speech is what has the demonstrating Muslims so upset.
The fact that Muslims are being murdered by the United States and the "coalition" is most likely at the heart of their anger, don't you think?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

28. You asked

The fact that Muslims are being murdered....is most likely at the heart of their anger, don't you think?"

I don't know. I really honestly don't. It is tempting to believe the schtick that this is a race, or culture, that wants to dominate, to turn us all into believers. But I have become so hardened to the right's talking points on this subject that I don't know who or what to believe. I don't really know anyone who has lived this, whom I can respect, who doesn't have an agenda.

Then I sit and ponder that hey, these are just human beings who want what I want in life: safety, love, to have my needs met. And then... I also ponder whether if I were really faced with true evil if I would recognize it. What I mean is, what if they are right? (the folks that paint Islam with the broad domineering brush). So I just kind of sit and don't think.

It has me very muddled.

[LSK]

32. i talked briefly to a friend of mine in Italy today

He seems to think its a setup too. He says most of the muslims protesting are not allowed to see the cartoons. He says they are being told to protest by their leaders or by someone. He seems to think that certain people want tensions to rise in order to start more wars for oil.

I see so much debate about how evil the muslims are and not enough about who would benefit from their displays of outrage.

[greyl]

23. I'd bet the racist right doesn't understand the cartoons.

Because of that, they aren't quite bedfellows with those on the left who do understand them.

[smartvoter]

31. No. It's always the jerks that test our freedoms. nt